anti-abortion restrictions

LITHUANIA- Lithuanian Parliament to discuss restricting access to abortion
by International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion
Oct 23, 2017

The Lithuanian Parliament is due to discuss a draft law that would strongly restrict women’s access to legal abortion leaving only two options for accessing the procedure: when women’s life and health are in danger and in cases of rape. The text was proposed by the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania who have since 2005 unsuccessfully tried to submit bills to criminalise abortion.

In response, the ASTRA Central and Eastern European Women’s Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights sent letters to the Lithuanian President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Seimas, calling for rejection of this bill.

In Germany, abortion is not the lightning rod for liberal and conservative anger that it is the US. But the fact that it is technically illegal under the constitution is just one issue that still stirs debate.

Anti-abortion politicians have quietly passed 391 laws restricting access to abortion since 2010. The politicians that push these laws often claim that they are necessary to protect the health and well-being of women, their pregnancies, and their children. Ample scientific evidence makes clear that restricting abortion is detrimental to women and families’ health.

This second volume of ‘Evaluating Priorities’ updates the Center for Reproductive Rights’ collaboration with Ibis Reproductive Health to explore anti-abortion politicians’ claims. The findings mirror those from the 2014 report: the more abortion restrictions a state has, the worse women and children fare when it comes to their health outcomes, and the fewer evidence-based supportive policies a state has.

The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt pushed back on politicians’ claims that abortion restrictions protect women’s health and safety, favoring scientific evidence and women’s real life experiences over unproven or false claims. This report bolsters that message, illustrating that legislators should be taking their cues from data and their constituents’ needs to address the real health concerns in their states, and should stop playing politics with women’s reproductive rights and health.

Many Abortion Restrictions Have No Rigorous Scientific Basis
May 9, 2017, News ReleaseTexas and Kansas Stand Out as the States with the Largest Number of Scientifically Unfounded Restrictions

At least 10 major categories of abortion restrictions are premised on assertions not supported by rigorous scientific evidence, according to a new analysis in the Guttmacher Policy Review. These restrictions include unnecessary regulations on abortion facilities and providers, counseling and waiting period requirements rooted in misinformation, and laws based on false assertions about when fetuses can feel pain.

The authors, Guttmacher Institute experts Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash, document that over half of U.S. women of reproductive age live in states where abortion restrictions are in effect that have either moderate or major conflicts with the science. The worst offenders are Kansas and Texas (with laws in effect in eight out of the 10 categories) and Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota (seven such laws each). A table with information for all states is included in the full analysis.

In 2016, 18 states enacted 50 new abortion restrictions, bringing the number of new abortion restrictions enacted since 2010 to 338. Although state-level assaults on abortion access continued, 16 states took important steps in 2016 to expand access to other sexual and reproductive health services, adopting a total of 28 proactive measures. Many of these measures expand access to contraception by requiring health plans to cover an extended supply of contraceptive methods (five states), authorizing pharmacists to dispense contraceptives without a physician’s prescription (one state) or expanding insurance coverage of contraception (three states).

The contentious issue of abortion came up during the final U.S. presidential debate on Wednesday.

Hillary Clinton affirmed women’s right to abortion while Donald Trump said he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who oppose it. Clinton countered by looking internationally to the consequences of governments circumventing reproductive rights.

“I’ve had a great honor of traveling across the world on behalf of our country. I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children, like they used to do in Romania,” Clinton said.